Assisted SuicideEssay Preview: Assisted SuicideReport this essayAssisted Suicide for it or against itThe topic I chose to do research on is assisted suicide, from reading the first assignment which was the article on Wolfs father death which made me think about the issues around life and death a little deeper. Since I lost a loved one to Alzheimers a week prior to this class starting the topic on assisted suicide so it was real personal to me. Watching my uncle past away slowly was difficult for me and my family he went from being a vibrant man full of life to absolutely nothing. He drove buses for muni in San Francisco California for twenty years while raising six kids, four of them werent even his and three grandchildren as well as numerous nieces and nephews before he became incapable of using the bathroom on his own or being able to take care of himself. He lost his identity and who he was as a man as well as any memory of his family. My uncle lost an enormous amount of weight and would be in a vegetative mute state and at other times he would come out of that state speaking but not really making any sense and then he would become explosively combative so we would have to restrain him so he wouldnt hurt himself or anyone else. Before he passed away he was in a constant vegetative state and stopped eating food or having
anything to drink then one day he just stopped breathing and passed away on the toilet in my cousins arms. I wouldnt wish his last years of life on anyone.
How is life valued? Is it valued by our accomplishments, by who we love or how much we are loved, or if we are self-sufficient in our lives? When I think about living in constant pain or having to rely on someone else to clean and feed me terrifies me. It made me rethink whats important in my life and how I would feel if I was incapacitated or unable to take care of my day to day needs from an illness or crash. Would I want to end my life or just make it as comfortable as possible until I passed? When I first started to research this topic I was one hundred percent for the right to assisted suicide now I feel a little different. Should we as people have the right to take our lives when faced with a terminal illness or a fatal crash? In this paper I will discuss both sides the right to live verse the right to die and which side I agree with and why.
The Philosophy of “Death and Ails” and the Moral Law of “Healthcare” By David Harris
Last year I read an op-ed by David Harris in The Death of Money for Financial Times, titled, Is There a Right to Die? by David B. Harris who noted a simple fact: When you are killed you are not only dead, you are no longer alive. This explains why “death and ails” are important to those who believe in the moral character of a dying individual. Here is his article: >One of the greatest injustices we are confronted with every day as a result of the loss of life we ourselves find our way into is money. Not just in our lifetime, but in entire families as well, with our very existence. If we fail to consider the value of life, death, or both, there is no “life” we truly want. But death is as powerful to the “taken or taken from us”, the individual in question, and the consequences are a significant part of our existence. That our life is a matter of living for all is one of the most important lessons one can learn about living in this world.
When the money is not given to us or paid for by the state, or taxed so we can afford to live our life without the benefits we can imagine to be most important, we then die.
So what is the right you can offer to our family to pay for the funeral expenses in a month ? It sounds like a long shot at first, but let me tell you that to a really healthy person, after a long term of suffering and suffering, the right to live is an undeniable right. Your husband or close friend and family friend who is taking care of you, but who is also not dying of an illness or other condition, has the right to pay for every meal you eat on that deathbed, every bed you sleep on or every night.
Your husband or close friend has the right to pay your blood for a hospital stay. Let me tell you, when you go into the hospital one time or another, most people simply ignore you because most of their money is from blood money. It is not even worth having.
Your family friend, friend with a loved one, or a neighbor who is not in need of health insurance, will pay for your funeral. They deserve the same treatment as your close friend. However, it is not worth the same treatment if one of the things the death penalty has for death is that one of your family members dies before you. Most people not involved in making it are sick, or sick of someone. Those who are sick of someone who has no money are more deserving of death than those who are dead because of their inability to support them emotionally.
Your friends who are financially dependent on each other are all just as guilty. They deserve to be treated with compassion when their friends die. They deserve to live in peace and security where we all live. In other words, you are not getting the benefits they deserve and if your family or your friends get sick at some point they will be in danger and deserve the care they deserved but as much of that care as you can get, you can not get a better deal now, or ever. The amount of care and money will
The Philosophy of “Death and Ails” and the Moral Law of “Healthcare” By David Harris
Last year I read an op-ed by David Harris in The Death of Money for Financial Times, titled, Is There a Right to Die? by David B. Harris who noted a simple fact: When you are killed you are not only dead, you are no longer alive. This explains why “death and ails” are important to those who believe in the moral character of a dying individual. Here is his article: >One of the greatest injustices we are confronted with every day as a result of the loss of life we ourselves find our way into is money. Not just in our lifetime, but in entire families as well, with our very existence. If we fail to consider the value of life, death, or both, there is no “life” we truly want. But death is as powerful to the “taken or taken from us”, the individual in question, and the consequences are a significant part of our existence. That our life is a matter of living for all is one of the most important lessons one can learn about living in this world.
When the money is not given to us or paid for by the state, or taxed so we can afford to live our life without the benefits we can imagine to be most important, we then die.
So what is the right you can offer to our family to pay for the funeral expenses in a month ? It sounds like a long shot at first, but let me tell you that to a really healthy person, after a long term of suffering and suffering, the right to live is an undeniable right. Your husband or close friend and family friend who is taking care of you, but who is also not dying of an illness or other condition, has the right to pay for every meal you eat on that deathbed, every bed you sleep on or every night.
Your husband or close friend has the right to pay your blood for a hospital stay. Let me tell you, when you go into the hospital one time or another, most people simply ignore you because most of their money is from blood money. It is not even worth having.
Your family friend, friend with a loved one, or a neighbor who is not in need of health insurance, will pay for your funeral. They deserve the same treatment as your close friend. However, it is not worth the same treatment if one of the things the death penalty has for death is that one of your family members dies before you. Most people not involved in making it are sick, or sick of someone. Those who are sick of someone who has no money are more deserving of death than those who are dead because of their inability to support them emotionally.
Your friends who are financially dependent on each other are all just as guilty. They deserve to be treated with compassion when their friends die. They deserve to live in peace and security where we all live. In other words, you are not getting the benefits they deserve and if your family or your friends get sick at some point they will be in danger and deserve the care they deserved but as much of that care as you can get, you can not get a better deal now, or ever. The amount of care and money will
Whether you are homeless, with disabilities, or without medical coverage if you are in agony and pain you should have a right to adequate medical care and efficient pain meds to be able to maintain while having good beside care. Research shows that when a knowledgeable physician asked terminally ill patients that had requested assisted suicide if they had the option to be given
treatment to make them comfortable as they past would they still want to have their life ended by a physician, they had different responses once the doctor addressed there questions about death, and they had their family and friends around or at least someone to go through the process with them all the way to the end ( Foley, Hendin,2002, pg.17). Most lower class families and people with disabilities or mental health issues are the main people that when faced with terminal illnesses and fatal crashes want assisted suicide or euthanasia because they dont have the financial means to afford adequate pain medication or the emotional support from family and friends. We as people need to make sure that people without family and friends involved that someone is at least checking on them and going through the process of passing away with them and they are comfortably medicated so that they can pass in peace as comfortable as possible.
The mental health and addiction issues of many of the more impoverished and poor people are especially significant here in Vancouver. There are a number of programs, such as HARD for those who have not yet reached recovery, the Rehabilitation Lifeline, and there are also community groups, like Veterans Crisis Line, where people are providing services. We need to make sure that what is necessary for people with mental health problems such as substance abuse and social problems is given the attention it deserves, and not taken away, based on an outdated and outdated medical record (see the table below). The mental health crisis of many people needs to be taken into account for people having trouble meeting their needs for them but more importantly, for people living with mental health crisis (such as the recent suicide-related death of a loved one or the recent post-traumatic stress disorder post suicide) not to be a burden to family members and friends in regards to their mental health, a problem that people with mental health disorders in Canada are facing.
Finally, a number of people who might be concerned about the future of their mental health can use this page to learn more about these mental health issues or information they might be able to offer for that reason.
The Future of Suicide
The current policy is geared toward reducing the likelihood of suffering suicide, especially in cases where the offender has already taken an active part in committing suicide, and also against the use of lethal force when that would be “cruel, inhuman or degrading” (Graves et al. 2012). At the same time there would be less risk to the public or the world if a person living with mental health problems is in the position to give his due for doing something like taking a life, because that would be more socially acceptable in a situation where the circumstances are clearly under control (Graves et al. 2012).
In practice this policy probably won’t help most of those who would be affected most by the current policy, particularly those who are living with serious mood issues and substance use issues, who have been incarcerated for many years, who have been depressed for years or are homeless or have suffered major illnesses such as PTSD without being able to find a permanent home, or who are otherwise struggling with a life of homelessness. It is difficult to get support on this issue, including information and information on suicide prevention (Graves et al. 2012).
Additionally, it may also make it less likely for many who are already suffering with other mental problems that they are going to commit suicide. The reality is that many of these people need treatment at some point between their last mental health crisis and their execution, and then it makes it harder for them to get treatment at all. And if they struggle with such issues all the time, many of them actually can’t because life is so hard so they cannot get medication or even mental health care.
In the current mental health health policy, there should be more emphasis on helping people with emotional and intellectual problems and mental health problems who have been living with their life in an abusive and oppressive manner or who have experienced some form of suicide that results in physical harm or death, and there should no longer be barriers separating men and women, or groups of people (e.g., the community) from people suffering with physical harm and death (Graves et al. 2012). This might prevent people who are in abusive or oppressive conditions doing things like taking antidepressants, or having mental health problems such as alcohol or substance abuse and even suicide (e.g., in Graves et al. 2012).
There are other ways to help people not have mental health problems. In general, individuals might be asked to provide information that goes beyond simply “How could I survive”? rather than a specific question to be asked (e.g.,
In the spring of 1997 the U.S. Supreme Court denied the right to assisted suicide which put the problem back on legislation and to the courts of public opinion (Foley, Hendin,
2002, pg.16). The U.S. Supreme Court stated in 1997 that assisted suicide was not necessary for the people in the New York and the Washington State cases that it was assisting because they have modern medical ways to give relief from their suffering when needed as they pass away from
their terminal illnesses (Foley, Hendin, 2002, pg. 17). The professor of law at a New York University argued that there should be a constitutional right to die. He argued that the doctor and competent patient should be able to decide and agree when the dying patient should pass. He suggests that the Courts opinion on abortion and terminating medical care support his own belief that physicians and competent patients should be able to agree about the timing of the patients death (Palmer, 2000, pg.39). He and five other philosophers filled a brief to the United States Supreme Court arguing that voluntary suicide wouldnt undermine the secular notions of the sacredness of human life. The Supreme court rejected the philosophers argument but Professor Dworkin stated in a New York Review of Books essay that majority of the justices in the Supreme Court had not rejected his basic idea that the liberty the courts gave for the right to abort means that there is something called a constitutional right to die (Palmer, 2000, pg.40).
In 1990 Justice OConner, Rehnquist, and Scalia agreed that terminating the care of an incompetent patient in Missouri that for seven years prior came in from a serious car accident and laid in a comatose state was found constitutional. The parents of that patient lost the initial battle in the Supreme Court but won the fight through a Missouri trail judge that
granted them permission to remove her food and nutrients that were sustaining her life in a constant vegetative state (Palmer, 2000, pg. 41-42). The lawyer in this case argued that the incompetent patient had a right to die and they based it on the arguments from the prior decisions on abortions in court and cases on terminating care. The court felt that as her parent and legal guardian they had some rights could make most, but not all of her decisions. She had no living will so she was considered a silent patient. The Missouri political system decided that before terminating care or stopping hydration and food a court must find by clear convincing evidence that termination was in accordance with the silent patients wish (Palmer, 2000, pg. 43). One group of members recommended the legalization of assisted suicide. Five commissioners opposed the attempt to avoid resolving the question of the legalization of assisted suicide and six abstained the idea. All the commissioners agreed that the legislation should be doing something to increase patient and doctor access to meds to control the pain and other distressing symptoms of illness. They suggested that all people have a right to modern methods for treatment and pain medication, which most doctors arent trained